Laserfiche WebLink
COLO. R. W. CON. DIST. v. COLO. R. W. CON. BD. Colo. 577 <br />Cite as, Colo., 584 P.2d 570 <br />phrase "to a reasonable degree." In this <br />regard, we note a conclusion reached in Fry <br />Roofing, supra: <br />"In cases dealing with other areas of <br />legitimate legislative activity where pre- <br />cision was determined to be impossible <br />. . . such broad standards as `rea- <br />sonable' and `necessary' have been found <br />sufficient as standards, although incapa- <br />ble of precise definition." <br />This describes the type of situation we are <br />here considering. As indicated above, pre- <br />cision of the type which the Districts es- <br />pouse would be impracticable under the cir- <br />cumstances. For example, the Districts <br />urge that the General Assembly could have <br />mandated preservation of the "existing en- <br />vironment" and achieve the degree of speci- <br />ficity required by the constitution. The <br />present statute, however, meets constitu- <br />tional standards to permit leeway to pro- <br />ceed rationally in light of factual studies <br />which might show that certain existing life <br />forms would require inordinate support to <br />survive. <br />We conclude that the General Assembly <br />has established "what job must be done" <br />with sufficient clarity. It also has answer- <br />ed "who must do it" since it is specifically <br />the Colorado Water Board which is autho- <br />rized to appropriate waters to accomplish <br />the legislative purpose. It has sufficiently <br />described the scope of the Colorado Water <br />Board's authority. Thus, under the stan- <br />dard adopted in Swisher, supra, and fol- <br />lowed in succeeding cases, Senate Bill 97 is <br />not void for vagueness, nor an improper <br />delegation of legislative authority. <br />The Districts also complain of the Colora- <br />do Water Board's activities in accomplish- <br />ing its delegated duties. As mentioned, <br />DPOR did not make an independent study, <br />but submitted that the minimum flows for <br />fish would be adequate to preserve the re- <br />mainder of the natural environment. <br />The Colorado Water Board adopted the <br />assumption that, in order to protect the <br />environment to a reasonable degree, it <br />would be sufficient to appropriate minimum <br />flows that would maintain the existing <br />aquatic habitat and related fish production. <br />594 P.2d-13 <br />Nowhere is it shown that such an assump- <br />tion was unfounded or irrational. The Col- <br />orado Water Board made the assumption on <br />the basis of an extensive report by DOW <br />and on the strength of DPOR's conclusions <br />that the minimum flows recommended by <br />DOW were adequate for other parks and <br />outdoor recreation purposes. <br />It is to be presumed that the Colorado <br />Water Board carried out its duty under the <br />statute. Colorado Springs v. District Court, <br />184 Colo. 177, 519 P.2d 325 (1974). That <br />assumption must stand in the absence of <br />evidence that there is no rational connec- <br />tion between preservation of existing fish <br />species and related fish production by mini- <br />mum stream flows and preservation of the <br />natural environment. <br />We find the appellant's arguments as to <br />the impropriety of the delegation unmerito- <br />rious. <br />IV <br />[4] Finally, the Districts contend that <br />the Water Board has not abided by the <br />terms of its delegated authority in estab- <br />lishing the quantity of water necessary to <br />"preserve the natural environment to a rea- <br />sonable degree." They make four allega- <br />tions in support of this contention: (1) that <br />the beneficial uses contemplated are not <br />such as would support an appropriation un- <br />der the constitution; (2) that the Colorado <br />Water Board did not comply with the statu- <br />tory requirement that it request recommen- <br />dations from DPOR and DOW; (3) that the <br />Colorado Water Board failed to show that it <br />complied with the requirement that its ap- <br />propriations not "deprive the people of the <br />State of Colorado of the beneficial use of <br />those waters available by law and interstate <br />compact "; and (4) that the Colorado Water <br />Board acted only to preserve fish life rather <br />than the entire natural environment as the <br />statute requires. <br />Regarding the first point, the Districts <br />concede that the instream uses contemplat- <br />ed are indeed beneficial. They only ques- <br />tion whether the constitution permits ap- <br />propriations for beneficial uses that do not <br />